463 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's six of one, half-dozen of the other. Bioware wants to make DLC worthwhile and compelling, because it provides players incentive to purchase it and as a point of pride - they want to make the best game experience they can. The more worthwhile and compelling it is, however, the more some players will bridle when they feel that their experience is incomplete, due to perceived "missing" content that they feel entitled to. 

It honestly doesn't matter to this group that the budget for the DLC was separate, or that the developers on it were already transitioned off the main project. It doesn't matter when the developers started the development on it. It can, does, and will still feel like an incomplete game experience to this group, because the developers did a good job of creating DLC content that players want to play. The better the DLC content is, the angrier these players will feel, because they want it and don't want to pay extra for it. There is literally no proposition that will satisfy them.

The only alternative to angering this group of players is for developers to purposely make DLC that isn't as good as it could be.

This is what I fear. People would see a step backwards as progress. 

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

-snip-

I highly doubt this would be the case.

The ME3 team worked six months on Citadel and it was only $10. They worked less than that on Omega and it was $15.

If they were going to put enough work into it for it to be truly worth $20 - $30, it likely couldn't be a DLC to begin with. It would be too large of a file for XBL or the PSN to accomodate and would be sold as a full expansion.

So I think your fears are pretty ungrounded.

Citadel was $15 and it was released four months after Omega (which was three months after Levithan) keeping to a three to four month window they seem to have had since Mass Effect 2.  It was four gigs in size for it was released in two parts by passing the existing cap being the biggest DLC I have ever heard of.

Maybe my fears are ungrounded, but I normally think the industry will do what most industries do and thats cut costs where they can and charge where they can.

[Dusk Wolf]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying "well, the company is making money doing X, so if you don't like it, don't pay money to fhem and then maybe they'll listen" is a recipe for failure, for both the consumer as well as the company. It is entirely reactive rather than pro-active, it wastes a valuable resource - consumer confidence - in lieu for the short term cash in and, all in all, is rather dismissive of the consumer and gives the appearance of the company rather smugly saying "deal with it."

Invariably when companies do this, competition comes in. Someone finds a way to offer an equivalent (or even better) version of the product for less expense and the market share slips out of the fingers of the company who thought they could rest on their laurels, saying their product and model was so superior, that they could ignore consumer demands as long as they were still making money.

Entrepreneurial history is littered with examples where this has happened... but this isn't a theoretical any longer for Bioware. A company like CD Projekt is offering a story-driven fantasy RPG with (arguably) better choice and consequence mechanisms, engaging lore and, impossible as some would make it out to seem, free DLC. The first game garnered critical and fan acclaim. The second game only worked to improve nearly every complaint given about the first game, neither providing the "same old thing" nor changing the formula so much to irritate the fan base. Given the ramp up of their studios, these games are making them lots of money (despite selling less copies than DA2 until the TW2 port to the 360)... all with a free DLC model. 

When TW3 comes out head-to-head (relatively) against DA3, it is entirely possible that many fans could not be impressed with what Bioware is offering, including their DLC model, and instead migrate their buying preferences elsewhere. If such a "voting of the wallet" was extreme enough, this won't be a "lesson learned" but a coffin nailed. In retrospect, people will say Bioware's commitment to unpopular pricing models killed their IPs.

Regardless, smart companies do not want consumers to vote with their wallets. Not when their consumers are wanting to vote them out of office, so to speak.

This is capitalism. It's great, isn't it? When EA starts making bad games, they'll start falling. Then they'll be forced to either disappear or make good games.

It could be argued that this exact thing is what HAS been happening, and what is causing EA's current change--however subtle--in direction.

Some would argue EA HAS been making bad games. For a while now. Bioware titles included in that list. Some would also say that the EA model is to constantly acquire new studios with IPs that sell, milk them for what they are worth, then close said studios when their games start becoming unsellable, punishing the developer, padding their own bottom line and then acquiring another new studio and doing the same thing. That is also capitalism, but it is hardly a fair course of events... assuming, of course, that this is what is actually happenening.

I'm not sure anyone can say EA has changed recently. New words have been said, a new CEO is in the seat... but those are events, those aren't changes. We'll see if they are able to turn around their name and their overall reputation in the industry, but its anyone's guess if EA is course-correcting due to consumer feedback or if they just are trying to APPEAR they are changing.

I find it irritatingly funny how often people confuse capitalism and greed.

"Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system where capital
assets are mainly owned and controlled by private persons, where labor
is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners,
and the price mechanism is utilized to allocate capital goods between
uses. The extent to which the price mechanism is used, the degree of
competitiveness, and government intervention in markets distinguish
exact forms of capitalism"

"Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or
objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self,
far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a
markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power."

In my opinion, a majority of the companies that are in business today, banks included, are practicing greed masked as capitalism. Considering how much inflation has increased prices and how the pay wages for the middle and lower classes have not even come close to keeping pace the modern version of "capitalism" has not been good.

There is very little fair trade going on anymore. It's all about nearly every corporation out there trying to corner the market to earn way more than it needs to survive and thrive. I don't begrudge a corporation doing what it can to earn capital to keep operating because it's their right to do that. I have an issue with a corporation trying to be a monopoly and cranking out products left and right just make way more than what is needed to operate as a company. I don't believe that this is being done with DA:I after the fallout from Mass Effect 3's ending and from what happened with DA2 not being well received. I'm optimistic about it because Bioware has a good track record in spite of all that's happened recently.

[Khayness]

Kelgair wrote...

Hm, seems like the regional company that BioWare/EA hired for localization went under and it took them awhile to find a new one. Seems an odd reason to fault BioWare. I do hope that BioWare localizes those DLC to your region though. Being 3 year old DLC it might be iffy, simply because of the VO work. I strongly suspect you could make a case for the invesment if you wanted

edit: I use "though" way too much.

I don't fault BioWare at all. They didn't drop that region. There is a complicated and possibly EULA breaking method to magically make your copy appear as an international title rather than a regionalized one if you are tech-savvy.

Hell, I even edited my copy with ini files day 1 to include English subtitles (which it somehow doesn't).

But my experience with this isn't the universal state of being for all ME2 owners in Eastern Europe.

It is a dangerous precedent in DLC policy which can affect thousands in a bad way.
This whole conversation started why I prefer expansion packs, and there you go, one reason why.

Modifié par Khayness, 09 mai 2013 - 03:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Lament for Thessia wrote...

I find it irritatingly funny how often people confuse capitalism and greed. 

"Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system where capital
assets are mainly owned and controlled by private persons, where labor
is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners,
and the price mechanism is utilized to allocate capital goods between
uses. The extent to which the price mechanism is used, the degree of
competitiveness, and government intervention in markets distinguish
exact forms of capitalism"

"Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or
objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self,
far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a
markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power."

In my opinion, a majority of the companies that are in business today, banks included, are practicing greed masked as capitalism. Considering how much inflation has increased prices and how the pay wages for the middle and lower classes have not even come close to keeping pace the modern version of "capitalism" has not been good.

There is very little fair trade going on anymore. It's all about nearly every corporation out there trying to corner the market to earn way more than it needs to survive and thrive. I don't begrudge a corporation doing what it can to earn capital to keep operating because it's their right to do that. I have an issue with a corporation trying to be a monopoly and cranking out products left and right just make way more than what is needed to operate as a company. I don't believe that this is being done with DA:I after the fallout from Mass Effect 3's ending and from what happened with DA2 not being well received. I'm optimistic about it because Bioware has a good track record in spite of all that's happened recently.

Well... I'm sure you and I could have a very interesting discussion on the differences between base pay for the average worker of industrialized nations and the rapidly increasing costs of providing ancillary benefits to them, which can tax both employers and governmental institutions with higher costs and which would explain relative wage freezes found in the market...

...but that would get us delightfully off topic. 

And I would say, argubaly, the Bioware doesn't have the worst track record out there (there are certainly some worse offenders out there, such as Capcom), but they don't have the greatest, either. Conferences like the one Fernando Melo did last year, saying that DLC was one of the greatest boons to the industry and that players LOVE D1DLC (because, after all, they are buying it in droves, that means gamers like it, right?) was more than a little insulting. 

Charging something just because you can get away with it doesn't mean people love that you are charging them for it. It just means people will buy it. It doesn't mean that doing it doesn't paint a large target on your back where your fans will have no loyalty to you the second someone else comes out and doesn't charge for that same service. You are trading consumer loyalty for a quick buck. A practice that ALWAYS bites companies in the butt later down the line, bar none.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 mai 2013 - 03:31 .

[Kelgair]

Khayness wrote...

I don't fault BioWare at all. They didn't drop that region. There is a complicated and possibly EULA breaking method to magically make your copy appear as an international title rather than a regionalized one if you are tech-savvy.

Honestly, good to know.

Khayness wrote...
Hell, I even edited my copy with ini files day 1 to include English subtitles (which it somehow doesn't).

But my experience with this isn't the universal state of being for all ME2 owners in Eastern Europe.

It is a dangerous precedent in DLC policy which can affect thousands in a bad way.
This whole conversation started why I prefer expansion packs, and there you go, one reason why.

One of the reasons for my worry about the lack of DLC access [lack of localization] is that it could easily infect an expansion pack though. Since it's simply a different sorting of data. Would that break in ME2 content be more accute if all of it was bundled in an expansion?

edit: formating again

Modifié par Kelgair, 09 mai 2013 - 03:47 .

[Captain Crash]

08/05/13. EA shares up 26% YTD, stock hits 52-week high of $20.84

Yeah things aren't great over at EA as they are still tens of millions from where they once were, but there is still investor confidence in the firm as the above shows. I've seen people make a big issue of the job losses. The restructuring isn't nice at all, but all big firms do it. HSBC for example has a turnover in the billions and they just announced job losses and restructuring of over 1,000 people in the UK.

Specifically its not in EA interest to rush out this game either. Especially after recent events (Sim City showing need to regain consumer confidence)  and the DA2 legacy, plus the Dev comments also are also a great reassurance.

Modifié par Captain Crash, 09 mai 2013 - 03:56 .

[Khayness]

Kelgair wrote...

One of the reasons for my worry about the lack of DLC access [lack of localization] is that it could easily infect an expansion pack though. Since it's simply a different sorting of data. Would that break in ME2 content be more accute if all of it was bundled in an expansion?

Even patches aren't compatible with all versions, nor expansion packs, but you (usually) know that beforehand. Restricting half the good story DLCs suddenly is unpredictable, and doesn't leave you with much choice.

Since classic expansion packs are rare (all the recent ones come to mind are stand alone) and it's all about DLCs now, it's safe to say that it isn't a major concern anymore.

I don't think all the released DLC for ME2 (or DA2, ME3) can amount to a fully fledged expansion pack, with major gameplay tweaks, and 10+ hours of additional content, but the distribution would be easier, yes.

Bethesda for TES V Skyrim released the two major DLCs (Dawnguard and Dragonborn) in retail download code version (with a nice dvd case), since Steam didn't support this region with digital download versions of the game and its DLCs at the time.

Modifié par Khayness, 09 mai 2013 - 04:00 .

[JJDrakken]

I just don't believe you about Sebastian, Allan. I never will believe anyone at Bioware about that subject period.

There was just way to many things he filled in, to that story(Not to mention there was way to many holes in that story to begin with, that even he couldn't fill it all in). When it came to interactions, story plot, etc.. I fully believe he was in that game & cut out to make more money.

I cannot base an opinion on Javik, since I've yet to buy & never will buy ME3, do to Origin requirements.

But I will say this, for me personally. You guys are on on strike 2 for me as a company(I've been buying your games since MDKII). I was very unhappy with direction of ME3 & Origin requirement, I was very unsatisfied/jipped/cheated with DA2(again my opinion). (I also was very let down with SWTOR, but that's another matter).

DA3 for me is the factor that will say:  Will I continue to buy your games or drop you by the wayside. Either or, I do hope success for you guys. I enjoyed years & years & years of your games. So, I wish you no ill will. It's just factor of fun & wanting to spend money on stuff I enjoy & potentially adore.


JJ

Modifié par JJDrakken, 09 mai 2013 - 04:28 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

http://www.psu.com/a...r-game-released

Why can't more things be like this

I think many more than can be like that. Whether they should be or not, and whether companies base their schedules on that, is a different matter. Waiting until the games ships to start DLC production isn't a bad thing, but it's not nexessarily a good thing, either. If a company is planning Day 1 DLC, waiting until Day 2 to start it is ridiculous.

Stan, this is the problem though... should a game company be planning Day 1 DLC? 

The defense we have been told over the years is that it is nearly accidental: "The teams were done with the core game after it went gold... why NOT have them work on unfinished parts of the game so that they will be ready for Day One?" 

I don't have an inherent problem with DLC as a concept. I don't like it and I don't buy it, personally, as I think it is way too small of a return of investment compared to a fully fleshed out Expansion, for example. But I don't think it is wrong for a company to engage in its practice (especially if it is like DA:O, where both avenues are pursued).

For DA:O's D1DLC, there was a purposeful, long 6+ month delay from when DA:O was meant to go Gold and when it actually was released. In that case, it makes perfect sense that Shale was created in the meantime (a DLC item that was given away for free, I might add). But for D1DLC to be completed now, it needs to be part of the plan. Part of the design. This isn't accidental; it is quite intentional.

Which rubs me the wrong way, but not for the reasons you might think. Teams and assets are being used to create more content to be ready on Day 1. However, the base game itself has problems. For DA2, there were lots of glitching issues with the cutscenes that was grating and just looked unprofessional. There were issues with combat, for instance the exploding blood bags. Certain quests did not acitvate correctly, meaning they could not be completed. Import flags that reported incorrectly, resulting in the dead returning from the grave. These are issues and problems outside the overall scope of the game, but rather just indicate missed bugs. ME3 had bugs as well, such as the (very-loudly) complained about Face Import issue. 

Point being... these games could have done with a Day 1 Patch, rather than Day 1 DLC. I find it hard to believe that anyone can say that with the two months from when ME3 went Gold (let alone when the work on the From Ashes DLC work began) to test and QA, Bioware wouldn't have found (and fixed) the Face Import bug. It wasn't some obscure bug that only would occur in a rare, hard to find instance. 

Teams like Writing, Level Design, Animation, etc. can all continue working on future content to be released as DLC... but to put every resource available to making this DLC content available on the very first day when resources could have been applied to create a Day 1 Patch to make the base game as good as it can be would be a smarter move. If would creat a better first impression for the player to have of the base game and less negative response from players who feel they have to buy a more "premium" version of the game on Day 1 to get the "full" experience. Two birds, one stone.

Great post, Fast Jimmy. I could not agree more.

I do buy DLCs if they contribute to the story in some way or to support the company when the base game is great, though. That's why I didn't buy MotA. It was a meaningless DLC to me that didn't have anything to do with the rest of the game.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 mai 2013 - 04:40 .

[Clover Rider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lament for Thessia wrote...

I find it irritatingly funny how often people confuse capitalism and greed. 

"Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system where capital
assets are mainly owned and controlled by private persons, where labor
is purchased for money wages, capital gains accrue to private owners,
and the price mechanism is utilized to allocate capital goods between
uses. The extent to which the price mechanism is used, the degree of
competitiveness, and government intervention in markets distinguish
exact forms of capitalism"

"Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or
objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self,
far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a
markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power."

In my opinion, a majority of the companies that are in business today, banks included, are practicing greed masked as capitalism. Considering how much inflation has increased prices and how the pay wages for the middle and lower classes have not even come close to keeping pace the modern version of "capitalism" has not been good.

There is very little fair trade going on anymore. It's all about nearly every corporation out there trying to corner the market to earn way more than it needs to survive and thrive. I don't begrudge a corporation doing what it can to earn capital to keep operating because it's their right to do that. I have an issue with a corporation trying to be a monopoly and cranking out products left and right just make way more than what is needed to operate as a company. I don't believe that this is being done with DA:I after the fallout from Mass Effect 3's ending and from what happened with DA2 not being well received. I'm optimistic about it because Bioware has a good track record in spite of all that's happened recently.

Well... I'm sure you and I could have a very interesting discussion on the differences between base pay for the average worker of industrialized nations and the rapidly increasing costs of providing ancillary benefits to them, which can tax both employers and governmental institutions with higher costs and which would explain relative wage freezes found in the market...

...but that would get us delightfully off topic. 

And I would say, argubaly, the Bioware doesn't have the worst track record out there (there are certainly some worse offenders out there, such as Capcom), but they don't have the greatest, either. Conferences like the one Fernando Melo did last year, saying that DLC was one of the greatest boons to the industry and that players LOVE D1DLC (because, after all, they are buying it in droves, that means gamers like it, right?) was more than a little insulting. 

Charging something just because you can get away with it doesn't mean people love that you are charging them for it. It just means people will buy it. It doesn't mean that doing it doesn't paint a large target on your back where your fans will have no loyalty to you the second someone else comes out and doesn't charge for that same service. You are trading consumer loyalty for a quick buck. A practice that ALWAYS bites companies in the butt later down the line, bar none.

You know what would be the worst thing ever?

Okami 2.

iOS exclusive.

With Day1DLC.

Because Capcom hates us all.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

No. As I said before, EA has many fans and buyers of EA sports games, NFS, The Sims etc. ... even if Bioware fails and turns into ashes, EA will prevail.

What Fast Jimmy said.
Expansion > DLC
Add Day 1 DLC patch.

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 09 mai 2013 - 04:48 .

[LPPrince]

And we'd lose.

[Volus Warlord]

Captain Crash wrote...

08/05/13. EA shares up 26% YTD, stock hits 52-week high of $20.84

Yeah things aren't great over at EA as they are still tens of millions from where they once were, but there is still investor confidence in the firm as the above shows. I've seen people make a big issue of the job losses. The restructuring isn't nice at all, but all big firms do it. HSBC for example has a turnover in the billions and they just announced job losses and restructuring of over 1,000 people in the UK.

Specifically its not in EA interest to rush out this game either. Especially after recent events (Sim City showing need to regain consumer confidence)  and the DA2 legacy, plus the Dev comments also are also a great reassurance.

Your logic =/=EA's logic. For instance, they had DA2 rushed out because of what they perceived as an inconvenient release date, although Bioware's reputation at the time was much more "pristine."

First off, it has been suggested by EA on multiple occasions that they really don't give a damn about consumer confidence. They do not believe that disappointed customers will "vote" with their wallets, and this belief in large part has been vindicated by consumer habits.  People talk boycotts and never follow through, people scream at Day 1 DLC and microtransactions and buy them up, etc etc.

Also, stock price is a very deceiving thing. They are at best a superficial figure on the front page, and often hide some things that are truly busted with the company-dilapidation, idiotic policy, clinging to obselete practices, etc. The layoffs were inevitable-they were selling millions upon millions of games and still managing to lose chunks of money-but they still have other issues to contend with.  

Bioware's assurances, as you have seen, have been met with a wall of skepticism. It is hardly undue. After all the marketing and PR nonsense in with DA2 and ME3, being anything but skeptical would be rather naive. Or hopelessly obsessed. Either way, it is very, very easy to shoot holes in the credibility of their claims, so their assurances are rather null. 

So, all your rationale goes out the window. :innocent:

What incentives do they have to not rush the game out again?

[Fast Jimmy]

Legatus Arianus wrote...

No. As I said before, EA has many fans and buyers of EA sports games, NFS, The Sims etc. ... even if Bioware fails and turns into ashes, EA will prevail.

What Fast Jimmy said.
Expansion > DLC
Add Day 1 DLC patch.

LPPrince wrote...

And we'd lose.

This is also part of the problem. Despite how many times developers seem to be bought out by EA, have their IPs get thrashed by fans just a few years later and then get dumped by EA, you'd think developers would say "Hey, this might not be the best course of action for us."

But developers keep doing it. Maybe EA's policies cause the backslide, or maybe it is the influx of new resources that cause the developers to begin chasing CoD sales pipe dream ideas... I really can't say for sure. But the history really does tell a tale. 

And the fans are the ones who ultimately suffer. Either with poorer IPs, cancelled studios, new policies like DRM or new revenue streams like D1DLC... it all seems to fall back on the gamers of the world rather than the publishers. 

I'm tempted to say "and that's why I Kickstart a lot more now" but I don't think that is honestly going to be the long-term solution. Every game can't be crowd-sourced and funded on a showstring. AAA developers and big-name publishers need to have a better way of doing business. Because before long, everything is going to be entirely digitally streamed and then it won't matter if you have distribution chains with thousands of retailers... anyone can put a pay site and a download link on a website. So what will the publishers of the world be offering at that point?

[Kelgair]

Volus Warlord wrote...

-snip-
Bioware's assurances, as you have seen, have been met with a wall of
skepticism. It is hardly undue. After all the marketing and PR nonsense
in with DA2 and ME3, being anything but skeptical would be rather naive.
Or hopelessly obsessed. Either way, it is very, very easy to shoot
holes in the credibility of their claims, so their assurances are rather
null.

Some would call accusing BioWare of lack of credibility because you can shoot holes into their credibility circular logic.

I'd call it not having any loose ends...

or just being silly.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

What was assumed? That the event happened? Your choice in the matter wasn't explained or reflected in the least.

The plot of ME3 assumes that Shepard destroyed the relay. We were told this when Arrival came out, and further the entire intro of ME3 is based on it--Shepard under house arrest on Earth.

Well, it was Shepherd's word that he didn't destroy the relay. The Batarians still died, regardless. So someone needed to answer for it. Shepherd was on house-arrest pending investigation into the matter.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, it was Shepherd's word that he didn't destroy the relay. The Batarians still died, regardless. So someone needed to answer for it. Shepherd was on house-arrest pending investigation into the matter.

Tell that to Saren--he was accused of slaughtering an entire human colony, and he was not placed on house arrest but allowed to "phone in" and say, "I didn't do it."

Spectres don't get put on house arrest.

Maybe for the very reason that they let Saren go (and he then wound up leading a Geth/Reaper armada on a full-scale attack on the Citadel) is why the Council and Earth came down hard on Shepherd.

[Sanunes]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, it was Shepherd's word that he didn't destroy the relay. The Batarians still died, regardless. So someone needed to answer for it. Shepherd was on house-arrest pending investigation into the matter.

Tell that to Saren--he was accused of slaughtering an entire human colony, and he was not placed on house arrest but allowed to "phone in" and say, "I didn't do it."

Spectres don't get put on house arrest.

The difference is Saren was called to account to the Council as a Spectre, where Shepard was recalled to answer to the Alliance as a N7.

Modifié par Sanunes, 09 mai 2013 - 05:41 .

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...
The plot of ME3 assumes that Shepard destroyed the relay. We were told this when Arrival came out, and further the entire intro of ME3 is based on it--Shepard under house arrest on Earth.

I'm not seeing the problem. Playing Arrival doesn't give you any choice in how events turn out, so why would not playing it result in a different outcome?

Tell that to Saren--he was accused of slaughtering an entire human colony, and he was not placed on house arrest but allowed to "phone in" and say, "I didn't do it."

Spectres don't get put on house arrest.

Putting aside the fact that one individual case is proof of nothing, Shepherd is not merely being "accused". It is a known fact that he destroyed the relay. Shepeherd himself admits it openly. The trial is about deciding if his actions were justified, and how he should be punished.

Secondly, Shepherd is not a Spectre during the events of ME2, he was declared dead and is now working for a criminal organization. If I recall correctly, his Spectre status is not formally re-instated until the events of ME3.

And thirdly, Shepherd is not being tried by the Council, he's facing court-martial on Earth, by a purely-human Alliance military panel. So how a council Spectre would be treated is irrelevent.

[Captain Crash]

Volus Warlord wrote...

[snip]
So, all your rationale goes out the window. :innocent:

What incentives do they have to not rush the game out again?

Not at all, the rationale is still there. Your just being cynical and your post is twisting it to be purposely pessimistic. 

Anyway the only true source we have right now is in this thread.  Bioware stating it wont be rushed.  I rather take that as accurate.

Modifié par Captain Crash, 09 mai 2013 - 05:49 .

[Steppenwolf]

EntropicAngel wrote...

There are people that will never be satisfied with what Bioware does. These are the people that say ME2 and DA ][ were about pandering to the masses, yet in the same breath mention ME3 and "artistic integrity" with a sneer. As an aside, the two are mutually exclusive I would argue--a story that ends, putting it in the words of Mac Walters, as a "galactic wasteland" with the protagonist gauranteed to die (without MP) is not, at all, catering to a low common denominator.

And yet the Extended Cut did away with that concept entirely after BioWare said that that wasn't what we were supposed to take away from the ending at all. They still say that the EC didn't alter the ending, it just added clarity. So either their "integrity" doesn't extend beyond art and they just decided to lie to us, or they have no artistic integrity and were willing to completely change the tone of the ending because of us.

EntropicAngel wrote...

I dislike the sentiment that Bioware "needs" to "win back" anyone.
It is purely Bioware's choice whether they choose a path that includes
what you like or what I like. If they choose not to, one moves on. If
they do, then great.

...they do need to win back a lot of people. DA devs have said so themselves. They decided to drastically change the Dragon Age formula after one surprisingly successful installment and that resulted in a loss in sales of 50%.

[Kelgair]

Plaintiff wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
The plot of ME3 assumes that Shepard destroyed the relay. We were told this when Arrival came out, and further the entire intro of ME3 is based on it--Shepard under house arrest on Earth.

I'm not seeing the problem. Playing Arrival doesn't give you any choice in how events turn out, so why would not playing it result in a different outcome?

Tell that to Saren--he was accused of slaughtering an entire human colony, and he was not placed on house arrest but allowed to "phone in" and say, "I didn't do it."

Spectres don't get put on house arrest.

Putting aside the fact that one individual case is proof of nothing, Shepherd is not merely being "accused". It is a known fact that he destroyed the relay. Shepeherd himself admits it openly. The trial is about deciding if his actions were justified, and how he should be punished.

Secondly, Shepherd is not a Spectre during the events of ME2, he was declared dead and is now working for a criminal organization. If I recall correctly, his Spectre status is not formally re-instated until the events of ME3.

And thirdly, Shepherd is not being tried by the Council, he's facing court-martial on Earth, by a purely-human Alliance military panel. So how a council Spectre would be treated is irrelevent.

*twitch* You can be reinstated as a spectre (there are multiple assignments that will acknowledge this) in ME2, assuming you either saved the council or made anderson the head of the human council, but this is immaterial to the intro for ME3.

You are held in house-arrest either because you blew up a relay and killed 300,000 batarians and destroyed a perfectly good (terraformable)garden world, and are held for trial or you are under house-arrest because you just spent the last confirmed year as an active member of a known terrorist group. Take your pick.